Monday, August 25, 2008

So the other night Brooke was in Chicago and I couldn't sleep. I was watching television at about 12:30 am. During my flipping I came along an infomercial starring Bowser from "Sha Na Na". It was "The Ultimate Oldies but Goodies Collection"

There I was mesmerized by song after song. Loving the short snippets of great music. I realized I love these commercials. I love just getting five seconds of a great song and then moving on to another.

Then this afternoon while Brooke was resting I was watching the Cosby show. Elvin, the lame ass son-in-law, had come over to the house because he and his wife, the daughter that no one ever really cares about, Sondra, were in a fight.

Anyhow Clair and Cliff begin to reminice about moments that the family has shared and suddenly we're in a clip show. Oh how I love the clip shows. You get the best moments and just enough to have you looking for more.

Anyhow in a tribute to the great Timelife music commercials and the Huxtables I present to you

Cbarragan4.blogspot.com's Greatest Hits Volume 1.

That's right if you read right now you can enjoys such favorites as...

"So what came of this lesson in life. I grew to resent all of the legume family, so much so that I began to have psychosomatic reactions to beans."

"Me Thinks it's a scam...let's see""On Jan 21, 2008 11:35 PM, Chris Barragan wrote:Please allow me to pay rent now $650 I am willing to pay each month. I have check for $1500 can you please take your $650 and forward remaining $850 to party I have payment for in Panama. I have brother who has Christian work relief mission there. If this is good time please reply."

"Five minutes before the end of the movie I leaned over to Craig Tovey and asked "What's the plan? What do we write on her form?" Craig Tovey's reply 'I kinda thought that when the credits start rolling we run like hell.'"

Late Friday evening after Craig Tovey's wedding Brooke and I were at David's house talking with friends about California's proposition 8 which will be voted upon by the people of California. The proposition states:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

It has been a debate for some time now and one that friends of mine have shared varying viewpoints. I myself have have looked at many views trying to formulate a strong opinion. I thought that a recent ariticle posted on www.lds.org helped provide me with some insight.

Here is one part of the article that I most important to my personal view on marriage:

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.”

In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these privileges to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.

High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said:

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. Popenoe explained that:

. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support. Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

So I heard about it, read about it and now as I'm eating my packed lunch (which consists of a turkey sandwich and a jello pudding snack) I'm blogging about it. The Spanish Olympic team while posing for a photo decided to make "Slanted eyes" in a playful gesture about being in Beijing. Was it the smartest move the Spanish Olympic Basketball team could have made? Probably not. In fact it brought me back to seventh grade. I had a geography teacher, Mr. Dorfman. (I wish I could make up a name that great)

Mr. Dorfman was an engaging teacher, one of the many great teachers at Cunha Middle School. (Someday I'll blog about the Cunha years) I'd show you a picture of him but he refused to ever be photographed. (Maybe a little creepy in hindsight) Every Friday at lunch he would replay the "Simpsons" episode which played on fox the night before. It was like going to the movies at school.

Mr. Dorfman had all the school in a buzz over his map races. In fact he had a giant map in his room which he used. Students would compete against each other in a one on one competition to see who could find the Country, State, City that Mr. Dorfman had just announced. I remember his little finger on his right hand was permanently retracted because he had lost the ligament in it. (speaking of fingers you can get a great deal more out of your pudding snack if you use your index finger at the end. It's a bit messy but we're talking like 5 to 10% more pudding) Sorry to digress.

In any event one day we were going over some geographical facts he wanted to go through an example. I don't clearly remember the details only that as an object he was using students to represent places. He began by using me as China. I without thinking turned to my fellow students and made the "Slanted eyes".

No sooner than I did it Mr. Dorfman stopped and said "not funny" and then immediately removed the assignment from me and placed it on another student. I was crushed. I felt so dumb for doing it. It was so knee jerk on my part that I didn't even think about others feelings.

To be quite honest my friend Christian Chee was the only kid my age that was Chinese. I'm pretty sure he wasn't in the class with me so I didn't know who I would was hurting. I did however offend Mr. Dorfman and that made me fell so small.

There I was feeling like a big dummy for making that mistake. I've never done it again. I was 12 and I had learned a lesson that has always followed me. I'm sure these Spaniards feel enormously small for what they did. I'll forgive them, I can empathize.